MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W70434532

Unseating horseman: commercial harvesting right and the natural resources transfer agreements

2007· article· en· W70434532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kerry Wilkins

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d'études constitutionnelles · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtinguishmentTreatyPropositionEthnologyPolitical scienceLawHumanitiesGeographySociologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EnglishR. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901, is the principal judicial authority for the proposition that the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements (NRTAs) with the three prairie provinces extinguished the treaty rights of Indians in those provinces to hunt or fish for commercial purposes. This article argues that that proposition — the “extinguishment hypothesis” — needs and deserves reconsideration. It is inconsistent with the rest of current Canadian law on extinguishment. It draws no support from the text or the legislative history of the NRTAs, from the arguments offered in favor of it in the Horseman decision, or even from the judicial authorities cited there to substantiate it. It was quite unnecessary to the result in Horseman. And it has troubling practical consequences for the treaty peoples it affects. The difficult question is how to bring this issue back before the Court for fresh deliberation. francaisR. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901, represente la principale autorite judiciaire pour la proposition voulant que les Conventions sur le transfert des ressources naturelles (CTRN) avec les trois provinces des prairies ait mis fin aux droits conferes par traite aux Indiens dans ces provinces, de chasser et de pecher a des fins commerciales. Cet article fait valoir que cette proposition, « l’hypothese d’extinction », exige et merite consideration. Elle est incompatible avec le reste des lois canadiennes actuelles sur l’extinction. Elle ne s’inspire ni du texte ni de l’historique de la legislation des CTRN, des arguments presentes en sa faveur dans la decision Horseman, ni d’ailleurs des autorites judiciaires mentionnees ici pour en fournir la preuve. Ce n’etait pas necessaire au resultat de Horseman. Les consequences pratiques en sont troublantes pour les peuples des traites que cette decision touche. La question difficile est de savoir comment ramener cette affaire devant la cour pour une nouvelle deliberation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0130.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d'études constitutionnellesSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207